Just Posted: Fujifilm X-E1 hands-on preview

Just Posted: Our hands-on Fujifilm X-E1 preview. We've had a chance to get to grips with Fujifilm's latest X-mount mirrorless interchangeable lens camera and have prepared a preview looking at its key features and technologies. The X-E1 is Fujifilm's second mirrorless interchangeable lens camera and the first to rely solely on an electronic viewfinder for operation - we look at how the camera handles this, while we get a handle on how it sits alongside its peers.

Definitely not, you will be surprised when looking the result! You don't need to worry with high ISO; it is very clear in high ISO. White balance is excellent and this camera has a built-in flash. Use 35mm f/1.4 lens.

I was curious about the EVF so went to the local photo store and demo'd the Sony NEX 7 which allegedly has the same EVF specs as the X-E1. It was definitely higher res than the X-Pro EVF but there's still no way I could use it. Feels very disconnected from the scene, and unnatural. That makes the X-E1 a non-starter for me unfortunately. Everything else in the specs looks sweet, however. I prefer the OVF on the X Pro but the frameline inaccuracies bother me quite a bit (anyone find a good workaround here?).

BTW, AF lag on the X Pro didn't bother me as much as the shutter lag. Hopefully the firmware update will correct this, but it wasn't directly addressed in the PR. We'll see.

"It was definitely higher res than the X-Pro EVF but there's still no way I could use it. Feels very disconnected from the scene, and unnatural."

It's all in your mind. It's not necessarily better or worse, it's just different. And it's the "different" that turns some people off. It's not what they are used to. I remember people initially had the same aversion to working with digital images when moving from film. The images looked and felt "different" from film, so some people said "There's no way I could us it." Now, I feel some people are applying that same "different" feeling to OVF vs EVF.

I am super-excited about this. I have been hoping for a good, reasonably priced and sized rangefinder-style camera with good (ideally, "retro") controls ever since I saw Panasonic DMC-L1 (I am somewhat surprised this didn't come from the m43 family... but whatever. ;)

There's no bite to any of the pictures I have seen from the XPro-1, with the same random-array sensor as the X-E1s. They all look as if they've been shot at f22. I put it down to the sensor, which appears to give significantly inferior resolution to equivalent Bayer-array cameras.

Shooting some tests I found my X-Pro1 to be at least as sharp as Canon 5D2, which has more megapixels. Lenses were 35mm 1.4 for the Fuji and 50mm macro for Canon (normal Canon 50mm is junk compared to Fuji 35mm).

I'm really not sure which pictures you've been seeing. The X-Pro1 is sharper and cleaner than any APS-C, and competes with high end full frame cameras in terms of resolution. This isn't just my opinion, check out the Dx0mark scores or any objective image quality tests.

I have x1 pro. FOr many pics, what you say is true. But when focus is tack sharp, something amazing happens. So the issue I think is the autofocus. The sensor is capable for solid performance. The focus system is not.

I was considering the DP2 Merrill until I saw those samples. Over sharpened and crunchy. The portrait of the two women is not at all flattering. In contrast, the X-Pro1 is more subtle in rendering fine detail. It doesn't beat you over the head with it like some cameras.

See for yourselfhttp://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_e1/sample_images/

Pixel_peeper is right about the DP2 Merril. Unbelievable sharpness (check Steve Huffs review). But it is a limited use camera - very slow, no viewfinder, no good above ISO 400 etc The Fuji will be way more versatile. Anyway a good photo is not necessarily a sharp photo. Much more to it than that.

There are few if any cameras that can do better than the DP2M, in both sharpness and color, and the Fuji cannot, at base ISO and possibly up to ISO400. From what I have seen ISOs above 400 are functional, but not excellent. The DP2M images are astounding., but sharpening has to be done gently. The DP2M is simply not as versatile as the new Fuji. The lens on the DP2M is also excellent. I am in the market for a new single camera, and it is an interesting time.

Both cameras seem to be very sharp. The difference is that the Fuji XE-1 has better specs than the DP2, (should) have far fewer quirks and is cheaper to boot with a faster lens.

I would frankly be happy if my current DSLR gave me such crisp results but I hardly print big so I don't really mind getting less sharp results especially since I have far more AF lens choices on a DSLR.

As a Fuji- ignorant XZ-1 owner, could someone please tell me if Fuji makes a good sharp 'normal' prime lens for this camera... like from 35mm to 50mm equiv., f/2 or brighter? A lens that, whatever its cost, would satisfy the most critical of you as the 'right stuff' for landscape photography?

That new 35mm f:1.4 Fuji has be tested to be one of the best and sharpest new lenses in recent years... When I took the first test shots against a Canon 50mm 1.4 I had to check the EXIF data several times because I could not believe I had been shooting wide open with both lenses, Canon frames were like they were shot through a fog, and Fuji images unbelievably sharp all across the frame.

I'm just not up on the X-Pro1 DR capabilities. I have a D800 and a K-30, which both get around 13-14 EV DR. This makes working with raw files in LR a pleasure. I had the X100 and remember the IQ was outstanding, but I've never worked with any X-Pro1 files. Thanks.

I had high hopes for this camera. But based on the most terrible display of photos that Fuji has posted on their website to promote this camera will only turn people away.

Seriously Fuji?? Seriously?? Either this is a terible camera or the guy that took these pictures doesn't have a clue what he's doing. They are an abomination. My three year old grand daughter can take better pictures than that. Fuji, if you want to promote and sell this camera, these are NOT the pictures to do it with.

What were you thinking??? So, based on these sample pictures, I can only conclude that this camera is not very desirable with terrible image quality. Certainly the image quality is not in the same league as the X10, X100 and Pro X1.

Let's just hope it's the photographer and not the camera. Fuji, get rid of those terrible snapshots you have posted. My blind grandmother can take better pictures that that. Wake up Fuji, this is your reputation.

Looking at the samples I have to concur, not good images to show off the lens and sensor capabilities. The images of humans are too soft to my liking, should have focused on their eyes. The tonal quality of this sensor is superb, a Fujifilm hallmark which has me tempted, I have one on pre-order, but I'm not entirely sold... I may already have too many cameras. Will my X10 see daylight if I have the EX-1?

Believe it or not, photographers have been comfortably using these rangefinder-style body types for decades. Look up "Leica M rangefinder". Also keep in mind that Fuji also offers the HG-XE1 accessory hand grip for those who demand a thicker grip to grab onto. Also, there are people who do like a thicker, chunkier body. This isn't really a lightweight one-handed point-n-shoot type camera. This is more for people who prefer to hold their camera in the "classic" way: eye to the viewfinder, with left hand underneath the body and lens.

Well, the X-Pro1 *was* a little too chunky to be truly comfortable in my opinion. "Rangefinder style" works great ergonomically up to a certain size, after which you are just left holding a brick. The X-E1 on the other had seems to be just about right.

I shoot with the Fuji X-Pro1 and, while I don't believe I have unusually large hands, the camera fits perfectly in my hands and is very well balanced. My previous digital camera was a Nikon D700 and my last handheld camera before the X-Pro1 was a Mamiya 645 AFD so I guess I'm used to (and prefer) larger cameras. But I honestly don't find the X-Pro1 chunky or brick-like in the slightest.. it's a perfect size for me. But each to their own, of course!

@marike6 - I think you're over-exaggerating. A decent EVF really doesn't look or perform that badly in low light. I have an Oly VF3 for my m4/3 camera, which is far inferior than the X-E1's OLED EVF, and I have no problems with graininess or lag, even when shooting in low light. I can still see the image quite clearly, and I've yet to experience any lag that has prevented me from capturing my images. (Of course, I'm not shooting high speed action photography in low light, and I doubt most other people are either with these cameras.)

Given that an OVF makes the X-Pro1 so much more expensive and larger than the X-E1, with not much advantage gained, I don't think most people will ever miss not having a hybrid OVF on the X-E1. In other words, the hybrid OVF is not *that much* nicer ($700 nicer?!) over just having a good EVF like on the X-E1. Sure, the "large, complex and expensive hybrid finder" (dpreview's description) is certainly a great technical feat. But worth the price?

the NEX 5 can have an external viewfinder that is same as the one from NEX-7. The viewfinder on NEX-6 and on this new Fuji camera are exactly the same than on the NEX-7 too. Sony sells the viewfinder to Fuji, no more, no less. So, any of Sony's cameras can have a viewfinder, Idon't see then the sense of criticizing the OVF here.

@WellyNZ - it's "nicer" than the X-Pro1 because it's 100g lighter, it's more compact, it has a built-in flash, and it's a whopping $700 less expensive! And the main "compromise" is that you don't have the hybrid viewfinder that many people will never miss anyway. Weight savings, sizes savings, money savings, and the addition of a flash are all (cumulatively and/or individually) "nicer" things to have, IMO. Oh, and it also comes in silver!

Plus, aesthetically, I think the lack of the OVF window in the front, as well as the elimination of the viewfinder switching lever (the faux self-timer lever) makes the front of the camera look cleaner and less cluttered. The camera isn't trying so hard to be a faux retro rangefinder camera like the X-Pro1 is.

If the X-Pro1 is a bit larger and heavier than you prefer, go for the X-E1. But even the X-Pro1 with zoom lens is going to be more compact and lighter than any comparable DSLR and lens. Mirrorless systems can be made smaller because they have much shorter lens registration distances, smaller lens mounts, and their lenses can be made smaller because they aren't using retrofocus lens designs.

The XF18-55mm/2.8-4.0 OIS is still going to be as small, or smaller, than the average 18-55/3.5-5.6 kit lens for a DSLR even though it offers a faster aperture range (2/3 stop faster at the wide end, one full stop faster at the long end).

You better get an appointment at the optical store and buy new glasses, or you have a reading problem. Could also be that you write nonsense without ever having read any part ofd the article.The X-E1 has the sames integrated OLED Viewfinder that Sony's NEX-7 has.

It is great to see companies crawling over each other for the consumer money. Canon probably planning a MEGApixel, Sony is kicking nice and hard, Faveon is rapidly evolving, Lenses are getting better on P&S and P&S are pushing low end DSLRs, Leica is blowing its own nerdy horn, medium formats are getting cheaper, camera phones are getting better, Social and other apps are coming in, Instagram etc etc.

It is so much fun not to buy anything at all these days. By the time you pull your credit card out, you can bet a better camera has come out already.

Innovation and competition tend to bring product and price improvements, while companies can come and go. Personally I think there are a lot of great companies out there making great cameras, and I hope they are able to continue. There has been a lot of innovation in the last 10 years and I think that has made photography and video more accessible to more people, which is a good thing.

Look on the positive side - whatever you buy will make great images. Right now you can choose just about anything in a given price range and know that it will do more or less as good a job as anything else for the money. Go out, shoot, relax.

Huh?"It is so much fun not to buy anything at all these days. "The opposite is true, in my opinion. Choice and quality are greater than ever. By NOT buying, you miss all the good fun of a capable product.Of course this does not mean that you should change your equipment every 12 months.

Sure, and I personally like the Fuji's zoom more than Sony's. Yet the comparison already mentioned that it is faster, but was not completely true about the size/weight sacrifice. More than 50% is not "marginal".

Why do we not se what it can do and see if it matches we want and then see if the price fits and say, "we buy or we don't". No need to justify this by comparing all it doesn't has from what we would like to have. By that argument we never buy anything. Buy a NEX-7, it has it all, and even more than one needs. For the price Fuji sells it, it could have a few more feature and this, many people agree with. At 950$ for the kit it was correctly priced anyway. I have made photos for more than 45 years before I found a face detection in any digital camera, and, still do not see any utility for that. I frame, and shoot, all this extra Kikikaka does not gets mt attention. What made me turn over to NEX-7 was the manual focusing assistance that makes it fast to use in manual focusing with hybrid lenses.

I think Fuji have done a remarkable job positioning this camera. All the compromises are quite sensible and don't take away from X-Pro1 core strengths. Good job!Now just have to wait for the new firmware for my Xpro1.

Mein gott!!! I have just perceived that there are lots of Fuji insiders who post here!They have already used the new Fuji and can testimony in favour of its astoundingly good build quality, handling, Image output, etc.

Mein gott!! LOL, I have to agree, but one mistake Fuji made is using Sony OLED EVF, Why??? the one thing I did like from fuji was the OVF in the X100.Don't get me wrong I like Sony sensors but hate the EVF in the NEX and SLT cameras.

I don't own one, but just having a cam that you operate the aperture via the lens and the shutter speed via a dial on top makes this, for me, a much nicer prospect than the Nex range, plus some great primes as well. And it looks much nicer too, to me anyway

If you want gizmos and gadgets, get the Nex, if your interested in taking pics, get this!

While I usually don't care for reviews from people who have never even been in the same room with the camera, if this has identical image quality to the X-Pro1, it seems resonable to assume the images will look the same as those from the X-Pro1.

Nowadays the body does not really matter in terms of image quality. It would be very very difficult to see any difference in image quality among these mirrorless bodies (Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus) unless you shoot very high ISOs all the time. It comes down to which control layout / ergonomics you are more comfortable with. What does determine which system someone should go for is the lens selection. Micro four thirds wins here hands down, but Fuji has done an amazing job of releasing some fantastic lenses in such a short time (although the Fuji system is a bit more expensive than the micro four thirds). I don't know why Sony still keeps coming out with awesome bodies, but mediocre and large lenses.

I don't think it's too big. With smaller bodies a lot of people complain that the controls are too close together. As far as comparison with NEX7 goes, this is a different control paradigm, much more old school. It's not about which one is better, it's about who prefers what.

I think the tonal quality of the Fuji sensors is fundamentally different than Sony. The Fuji lenses easily best the mediocre Sony E series. NEX-7 has terrific usability/features but the IQ is just not the same. I've seen threads from wedding photographers shooting with the XPro1 while their Canon FF dSLR stays in the bag. I don't see that from NEX-7 shooters.

No phase detect AF, basically limits usage to static subjects....next please! Great camera otherwise. Nikon has had very good PDAF in their mirrorless for a year, and the new Sony NEX has it. Even the Canon EOS-M has it, albeit a very poor version. No reason why Fuji couldn't have incorporated it somehow.

So by that you disqualify all current Samsung, Ricoh, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica M and X, as well as all Fujifilm cameras.Yes, must be easy to make since even the giant Canon cant get it to work. Can se no reason at all. No sir, none at all.

I'm with sensibill - when I had a dSLR I rarely needed to use continuous AF, even when shooting my kids moving. There is a lot you can do, like pre-focusing or getting parallel to the action to minimize the relative speed. There is a big difference between photos of moving subjects, and sports photography... It isn't like PDAF is a perfect technology, either!

PDAF isn't just for sports....surely you must know that. It makes photographing anything that moves much easier. Why not just throw it in there? The people who want to use it will, and the ones who don't, won't. Because there were no amazing AF systems "back in the day" is a terrible argument. I doubt any of those people are still using manual focus film cameras, and I wonder why? Technology is a wonderful thing.

Nikon and probably now Sony have put very good PDAF in their mirrorless cameras. It is only an advantage to have that as an option - you can always use CDAF if you prefer. #1 criticism of mirrorless cameras right now is their AF, which is why they are starting to introduce PDAF.

Anyways, it's just my opinion. Why not expand your customer base with a simple addition of a feature?

The point is not that PDAF isn't a desirable feature, but that the lack of it does not mean you are limited to static subjects... I agree that it would make the camera more appealing, but it surely has a cost and time to market impact and goes beyond the 'simple addition' of a feature. If they included it we'd be complaining about the price :)

It's a fair point, as lack of this limits the camera. Fuji has already incorporated a form of this on a compact, so they'll probably have it on the next iteration, or after. I'm interested in using this camera beside my DSLR's, but that's one issue to fix before it could *fully* replace them.

Don't get me wrong, this looks like a beautiful camera with gorgeous lenses, way more so than the competition, but in a buyer's market, it makes sense to list pros and cons before comitting. Limited AF, one way or another, seems to remain it's weakest point.

I think it's good for photographers that Fuji is trying to do good stuff. It will certainly increase competition in the market. The main drawback seems to be the focus system that may let someone (like myself) thinking twice before going into something like the X system. I hope they can improve their focus system so that we can get really great X cameras (the lenses seems already be very good).

I would like to see the 35mm F1.4 as the "kit lens". Having to buy it separately at 600 USD is a bit steep for my pocket, even if is worth the price for what you get.X-E1 + 35mm F1.4 for say 1400 would be a killer combination.Think about that it has to compete against NEX6 and the announced 35mm F1.8 OSS lens.

@ludexMy test is simple: take raws from dprevew studio tool than process them in lightroom. I'm sorry, but fuji raws looks like crap and nowhere near FF. Damn, they look like crap when compared to any APS-C ;)

Could not disagree more, Glen Barrington. Name another mirrorless under $7000 with a shutter speed dial, EC dial, and a proper aperture ring on the lenses. You can't. These things are what real photographers crave.

So the "wrong direction" is ditching the funky hybrid OVF that only offers 3 FOV options and doesn't show you what's in focus in order to offer an otherwise similar body at a lower price ? What would you have cut to drop the price from $1700 to $1000 in an entry level body ? (I tried one and found the non-TTL VF to be odd and kind of pointless and would be happy to have a cheaper, smaller, simpler body). Don't get me wrong - I like optical VFs and enjoy my DSLR ... I also like rangefinder focusing (I have a couple old compact rangefinders). But I'll take a TTL EVF over a "window" (I can always take my eye from the VF to see what the scene really looks like).

OK I’m being really really picky but; does anyone else not like the indentation running along the front top of body. It makes it look like the camera has been dropped on the lens and the body was pushed in. It’s one of those design flourishes that serve no purpose and the camera would look better without it. My background is in design so that may explain why I care about these little points. Apart from that this camera looks great.

It's the first thing I noticed, and I agree it's unattractive and looks like an accident. I think they were trying to give a boxy camera some character and failed.

I'm no fan of retro design and thought recent Fujis were boxy and homely. I love the specs on this, more than I expected to, so could overlook the dent, if I had to.

I want Fuji to succeed because they consistently bring out unusual cameras, not copies. Wish they did a little more polishing before they released them so they didn't need major fixes to the firmware (or replaced sensors.)

Picture quality certainly is on par with D4 or even better (have to run some tests...), they both are great. In other ways they are not comparable at all. My D4 is a pro action tool, X-Pro1 is an "art camera"... Totally different, but both are very good at what they are good at.